No, that is explicitly not what I said. I said if you talk to this person even briefly, you will quickly realize the actual basis of his objection is racism. It is not subtle.
What is your expectation of me here, to pull out some sort of video proof to convince you, the skeptical hnews reader?
Sometimes this place is extremely tiresome.
Just go do some googling and you'll realize how common this sentiment is. And it's nothing new. Read about Robert Moses and why he made bridges too low for buses.
> Read about Robert Moses and why he made bridges too low for buses.
On that suggestion, I just went and read the wikipedia article on Robert Moses. It mentions that buses and commercial vehicles do in fact go under those bridges today, and that the accusations of racism are disputed.
"I only learned about this today and just read a wiki article and that convinces me you're lying" is pretty much the problem with this place in one shot.
You complain this place is tiresome, and then invite us to go read about Robert Moses and his racist bridge policy. So we go read a bit about it, and note that a somewhat more authoritative source than rando-on-HN suggests that the accusations are in dispute and lack good supporting evidence. And now -this- is in fact the problem with HN?
Seriously? Has the bar changed from "Google it" to "Read through several research papers and books" for someone to comment on how true something is generally accepted to be? And you're saying that the person who looked something up on Wikipedia is the problem?
What is your expectation of me here, to pull out some sort of video proof to convince you, the skeptical hnews reader?
Sometimes this place is extremely tiresome.
Just go do some googling and you'll realize how common this sentiment is. And it's nothing new. Read about Robert Moses and why he made bridges too low for buses.